Poll of the Day > As a truck driver I'm required to pass a physical every 2 yrs (gun control)

(+) Yeah! (+)

Rasmoh posted...

I agree wholeheartedly, the poor really shouldn't be able to defend themselves or their property.

What property are they defending? The property they stole? Could they not defend themselves with a taser instead? How do the people of Canada, UK, France, Spain, Australia, Russia, Austria, Germany, South Korea all defend their property without guns?

Rasmoh posted...

But they are literally the only effective means of protection for huge amounts of people. If you have a more effective way for my 5'6" 130 lb wife to defend herself against a 6'2" 230lb attacker, I'd love to hear it.

We have this really neat 20th century device, it's called a phone. You dial a 9, then a 1, then another 1, and a person will speak to you on the line. They will ask you what your emergency is. Just tell them, then they come and take care of the problem. I admit it feels strange, hoping a government paid employee will actually do their job and protect you. But it's typically better to leave the protecting people to the trained professionals rather than to the gun nuts that frankly could never manage to pull their weapon out in time and defend themselves without risk of hurting others?
---

SinisterSlay posted...

What property are they defending?

Literally anything that belongs to them?

Could they not defend themselves with a taser instead?

Tasers are extremely unreliable.

How do the people of Canada, UK, France, Spain, Australia, Russia, Austria, Germany, South Korea all defend their property without guns?

They don't. In fact, many of them face legal punishments for defending themselves or their property, which is so absurd that it's hard to believe it actually happened.

SinisterSlay posted...

We have this really neat 20th century device, it's called a phone. You dial a 9, then a 1, then another 1, and a person will speak to you on the line. They will ask you what your emergency is. Just tell them, then they come and take care of the problem. I admit it feels strange, hoping a government paid employee will actually do their job and protect you. But it's typically better to leave the protecting people to the trained professionals rather than to the gun nuts that frankly could never manage to pull their weapon out in time and defend themselves without risk of hurting others?

Are you fucking delusional? Do you think cops instantly teleport into your house between you and an attacker the second you finish dialing 911? You could literally be raped and murdered long before police show up to assist you. Average police response time is something like 12 minutes, which is an eternity when you are facing down an attacker.

Why does the concept of people being self-reliant scare you so much? Why does the thought of someone not leaving their lives in the hands of slow-acting government officials who have no legal obligation to protect them bother you so much?
---

Rasmoh posted...

Why does the concept of people being self-reliant scare you so much? Why does the thought of someone not leaving their lives in the hands of slow-acting government officials who have no legal obligation to protect them bother you so much?

Come on, Rasmoh, I've argued with you before and I know you're not this dumb.

The issue is not people using guns to defend themselves. No one is holding marches saying "Down with people lawfully owning guns and using them in a means within the law to defend themselves and their property!". If guns were only used in defence of the innocent, I suspect that everyone, or nearly everyone, would support them.

The point is that guns frequently AREN'T used for lawful purposes. In fact, guns are used far, far more often for criminal means than for self-defence. That's the problem. The cost of having guns available as a tool of self defence does not justify what limited benefit they provide.

Rasmoh posted...

In fact, many of them face legal punishments for defending themselves or their property, which is so absurd that it's hard to believe it actually happened.

I don't know of anywhere where defending yourself is illegal and I'd love to see your source on this proving it isn't just ignorant scaremongering.

Rasmoh posted...

Tasers are extremely unreliable.

So are guns, really. Honestly, they're a terrible tool for self defence for several different reasons. Your wife is more likely to survive by running away than she is by pulling a gun.
---

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

KnoxKorner posted...

What part of 'Shall not be infringed' do you not understand?

What part of 'A well regulated militia' do you not understand?

REGULATED. The Republican spook word is in the constitution.
---

darkknight109 posted...

If guns were only used in defence of the innocent, I suspect that everyone, or nearly everyone, would support them.

Anything and everything can be misused for the wrong reason. Restricting one's fundamental right to defend themselves is moronic and twisted, especially when you consider guns are often the only option with an efficacy for some people.

In fact, guns are used far, far more often for criminal means than for self-defence.

This is a horseshit statement and you know it. Guns deter millions of crimes every year, but that deterrence can't be packaged up into a neat little misleading statistic so you sit there and pretend that they don't.

I don't know of anywhere where defending yourself is illegal and I'd love to see your source on this proving it isn't just ignorant scaremongering.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461346/Five-years-in-prison-for-acting-in-self-defence.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9516776/Farm-tenant-arrested-after-burglars-shot-was-plagued-by-break-ins.html

Literally the first two google search options.

So are guns, really. Honestly, they're a terrible tool for self defence for several different reasons.

They're not unless you don't train yourself to use them. Tasers and pepper spray fail all the fucking time because there are far too many variables that can hinder their efficacy in comparison to a gun. Lesser weapons, such as baseball bats or knives, can have their efficacy reduced to zero in the event of multiple attackers or an assailant physically outmatching you. Guns, at worst, put you on equal ground with an attacker.

Your wife is more likely to survive by running away than she is by pulling a gun

That's really not a better option than shooting a criminal. How high do you have to be to think it is?

Yellow posted...

REGULATED. The Republican spook word is in the constitution.

At the time of the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, Well Regulated meant properly maintained, updated and trained. It did not mean the modern "regulated" term associated with endless bureaucratic bullshit. Republicans actually know this though, which is why that part doesn't concern them.
---

Ok, so the militia is well regulated, you are saying?

Remind me to join my local military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. I hear it's well regulated.
---

Yellow posted...

Ok, so the militia is well regulated, you are saying?

Militia in the second amendment has already been confirmed to mean every able bodied male aged 49 or less, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And then the meaning was expanded to include women and people over 50. You are not as clever as you think you are.
---

They confirmed that like the Catholic church confirms when the Bible is just kidding.
---

Actually the Supreme Court holds that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms based on very rudimentary rules of interpretation, including grammatical and historical analyses of the text and background at the time of its addition. Even most prominent left wing legal academics agree. So the individual right does not require membership in any kind of "militia."

The open issue is the extent of constitutionally permissible regulation of that right. For example, you can't own a missile launcher. Similarly, the federal and state government generally cannot impose an outright ban on the private possession and ownership of basic hanguns and rifles unless some other condition has been satisfied (e.g., it is permissible to prohibit convicted felons from owning firearms because they sacrificed that constitutional right due to criminal activity).

The law on permissible regulations continues to evolve, especially recently. And that's why it's so pointless for the vast majority of people to argue about the meaning and purpose of and the cases interpreting the Second Amendment. Most don't understand and certainly most don't have something like a law degree or backgound in constitutional and case law analysis that remotely approaches the type of knowledge necessary to start an informed discussion.

Rasmoh posted...

Anything and everything can be misused for the wrong reason. Restricting one's fundamental right to defend themselves is moronic and twisted, especially when you consider guns are often the only option with an efficacy for some people.

By this logic, why not legalize missile launchers? Or civilian ownership of artillery? Or tanks? Or fighter jets? Literally every one of those things is completely safe if used responsibly and would deter crime in the exact same way as guns.

What's "moronic and twisted" is the US's insistence on allowing its citizens to own battlefield weaponry under some vague pretense of "self-defence", despite clear evidence that it's equipping criminals and resulting in wholesale butchery.

Rasmoh posted...

This is a horseshit statement and you know it. Guns deter millions of crimes every year, but that deterrence can't be packaged up into a neat little misleading statistic so you sit there and pretend that they don't.

"Millions of crimes"? Fuck me, your country must be an absolute hellhole if there are millions more crimes out there that are only held back by a wild proliferation of guns, on top of the ~1.2 million violent crimes and ~8.0 million property crimes.

The US already has far and away the highest murder rate in the world (roughly triple its nearest first-world peer) and pretty average-to-high rates of all other violent crime compared to other developed nations; if those numbers represent a downward "adjusted" total compared to what it would be without guns, you guys have seriously fucked up in looking after your country.

Rasmoh posted...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1461346/Five-years-in-prison-for-acting-in-self-defence.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9516776/Farm-tenant-arrested-after-burglars-shot-was-plagued-by-break-ins.html

Literally the first two google search options.

1. "Moreover," Mr Potter continues, "while self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder, the Court of Appeal has ruled that if the force you use is not judged to have been reasonable - if a jury, that is, decides it was disproportionate - then you are guilty of murder"

2. The case will reignite the debate over a householders right to defend his property

Literally text from both articles.

The first one flat-out states that self defence is legal; the jury simply decided that the force that the accused used was disproportionate to the threat against him, and there are laws on the books everywhere that make disproportionate retribution illegal (including the United States). He wasn't charged for defending himself, he was charged for using too much force in that defence.

The second one was a case of defending property, not self-defence as I stated. I understand that you think your TV is worth more than a human life, and I know there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise so I won't bother trying, but many countries have "requirement to disengage" laws that stipulate that if you have an opportunity to disengage and run you are required to do so (basically, once the immediate threat to your safety ends, your right to self-defence similarly disappears). That may sound strange to you, but rest assured your "Stand Your Ground" laws sound similarly barbaric to us, so you're going to have to chalk that one up to difference of opinion.
---

Rasmoh posted...

They're not unless you don't train yourself to use them. (...) Guns, at worst, put you on equal ground with an attacker.

No, guns at worst can be taken from you and used against you, which is worse than useless and has a very high chance of leaving you dead.

No, if you're hoping to use a gun for self-defence, you're likely going to be disappointed because the nature of guns does not lend themselves to self defence. First off, they have to be drawn from wherever they're being carried and if that's in a concealed holster or a purse somewhere, you may as well give up at that point because you're never going to have time to draw it in an actual confrontation. If it's in an external holster you might have a chance... but you have to draw the weapon, get the safety off, aim, and fire all before your attacker reaches you. Cops - who have had more training with their weapons than Joe Average - ran experiments on this and determined that if the attacker was closer than 20 feet, they would be able to reach the cop before the cop could fire his weapon. How many muggings or rapes do you know of that occur at 20 feet? Most of the time you won't know your attacker is even there until it is far too late - they will be able to reach you long before you can reach your gun (and if they are armed as well, because, after all, guns are pretty easy to get in the good ol' US of A, you're fucked right and proper because they have the advantage of knowing when the confrontation is going to occur [and that it will occur at all] and prepping accordingly).

And that's all in ideal conditions without accounting for the reality that you are going to be amped out of your mind on adrenaline. Gun preparation and use requires fine motor skills, which is the very first thing your body's fight-or-flight response shuts down. Best of luck hitting anything when your hands are shaking from the adrenaline rush, if you've even managed to get the safety off before you've been punched in the face.

On the other hand, all that adrenaline means you'll be able to run faster and farther than you ever have in your life, so it's superb for running away. Speaking of which...

Rasmoh posted...

That's really not a better option than shooting a criminal. How high do you have to be to think it is?

I believe you mean "how experienced". I've been in martial arts for 25 years. I've trained with (and trained) cops and run numerous self-defence courses over the years. The very first thing I tell everyone when talking about civilian self defence is to a) Avoid the situation if at all possible and b) If that's not possible, run your ass off. You fight only if you cannot run, and only until an opportunity to run appears, because odds are very good that your opponent will be a better fighter and more accustomed to violence than you and the odds you will win a physical confrontation, regardless of what tools you bring to the fight, are slim-to-none.

Running doesn't require accuracy or fine motor skills. It's what your body already is trying to do, so said body is giving you some excellent tools to do it. It draws attention, which perps don't want, and can therefore get you help (make lots of noise while running to maximize this effect). At best, your attacker decides you're too much of a hassle and lets you go, in which case you survived (mission accomplished!). At worst, he gives chase and is faster than you, in which case you're no worse off than when you started.

Take a self-defence course if you don't believe me - any instructor worth their salt will tell you to run at the earliest opportunity.
---

Its strikes me as funny how whenever I see this topic come up, the hardcore right-wingers offer no solutions, only thumb their collective noses at anything thats proposed that puts any restrictions on access to firearms.

Not a single thought among the hivemind, just mindlessly clinging to that outdated 2nd Amendment.

Since none of them are able to offer up a different solution that both protects innocent, unarmed children and preserves 2nd Amendment rights, Ill do it for them. This one should be better suited to the fringe right:

A massive push for increasing police presence. Hire police specially trained in protecting schools and other targeted public spaces. Staff the schools with two full-time officers, increase on-grounds surveillance so they can monitor the property.

All of this paid for with a hefty tax on firearms and ammunition.
---

The funny thing about the cat analogy is that far more people die every day due to idiot drivers than guns

Rasmoh posted...

But they are literally the only effective means of protection for huge amounts of people. If you have a more effective way for my 5'6" 130 lb wife to defend herself against a 6'2" 230lb attacker, I'd love to hear it.

How will a gun help her defend herself?

Let us take some scenarios and see how the gun helps!

1) Someone wants to mug her, he has a gun/knife in her face demanding her bag. She can either, give up the bag and live, or reach for her gun instead and just be shot or stabbed instead. Yeah that gun really helped!

2) Someone wants her dead, she is stood at an ATM getting money, someone walks up behind her and stabs/shoots her. She had no time to get her gun.

3)Kidnappers! She goes to get in her car and there is a van next to it, as she goes in her bag for her keys a man comes out the side door and puts a sack over her head, drags her in and knocks her out. He then takes the gun from her bag. Again so much use!

Guns are crap for self defence.
---

OhhhJa posted...

The funny thing about the car analogy is that far more people die every day due to idiot drivers than guns

From the other topic:

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, let's look at another tool that has been responsible for a great deal of death and mayhem: the car. Just like guns, it has completely defensible uses. Just like guns, millions of law-abiding owners use them daily. And just like guns, they can be used - intentionally or otherwise - to seriously injure or kill innocent bystanders.

So when cars started becoming widespread around the turn of the 20th century and people suddenly noticed that a lot of people were dying to them, we fucking changed things.

Laws around cars were tightened up considerably. To this day every car on the road has to be registered with the government and insured. Stupid shit that was clearly killing people, like driving while drunk, was outlawed. Safety features, like crumple zones, seat belts, and airbags, were developed and eventually legally mandated on all new cars. And in order to even operate a car in the first place, a potential driver must be of a minimum age and must pass a series of examinations in order to prove that they can safely operate the vehicle; and if they later prove that they can no longer be trusted with that responsibility, their right to operate the vehicle is restricted or removed altogether.

End result? Car deaths peaked in 1970 and have been dropping ever since, despite the fact that there are more vehicles now than ever. Deaths per vehicle-miles-travelled have been dropping almost unabated since the 1920s when the first of these regulations were implemented.

Guns, on the other hand, have been merrily sailing in the other direction with predictable results. Safety features - like limiting magazine size - are vigorously fought by the NRA, while what flimsy regulations exist have been steadily stripped away since the 70s. Make the suggestion about creating a national gun registry and watch as gun advocates recoil in horror. What few protections exist on who can own and purchase a gun have next to no enforcement and are easily circumvented and, in many areas, no proof-of-training or background checks are required and the only thing needed to buy a gun is proof of age and sufficient cash. End result? Gun deaths have remained steadily high and virtually unaltered in the last 20 years, despite the fact that the rate of gun ownership has dropped by nearly a quarter over the same time period.

If you truly believe guns are tools, treat them that way. It won't fully solve the problem, but it would certainly help.

---

darkknight109 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

The funny thing about the car analogy is that far more people die every day due to idiot drivers than guns

From the other topic:

darkknight109 posted...

I mean, let's look at another tool that has been responsible for a great deal of death and mayhem: the car. Just like guns, it has completely defensible uses. Just like guns, millions of law-abiding owners use them daily. And just like guns, they can be used - intentionally or otherwise - to seriously injure or kill innocent bystanders.

So when cars started becoming widespread around the turn of the 20th century and people suddenly noticed that a lot of people were dying to them, we fucking changed things.

Laws around cars were tightened up considerably. To this day every car on the road has to be registered with the government and insured. Stupid shit that was clearly killing people, like driving while drunk, was outlawed. Safety features, like crumple zones, seat belts, and airbags, were developed and eventually legally mandated on all new cars. And in order to even operate a car in the first place, a potential driver must be of a minimum age and must pass a series of examinations in order to prove that they can safely operate the vehicle; and if they later prove that they can no longer be trusted with that responsibility, their right to operate the vehicle is restricted or removed altogether.

End result? Car deaths peaked in 1970 and have been dropping ever since, despite the fact that there are more vehicles now than ever. Deaths per vehicle-miles-travelled have been dropping almost unabated since the 1920s when the first of these regulations were implemented.

Guns, on the other hand, have been merrily sailing in the other direction with predictable results. Safety features - like limiting magazine size - are vigorously fought by the NRA, while what flimsy regulations exist have been steadily stripped away since the 70s. Make the suggestion about creating a national gun registry and watch as gun advocates recoil in horror. What few protections exist on who can own and purchase a gun have next to no enforcement and are easily circumvented and, in many areas, no proof-of-training or background checks are required and the only thing needed to buy a gun is proof of age and sufficient cash. End result? Gun deaths have remained steadily high and virtually unaltered in the last 20 years, despite the fact that the rate of gun ownership has dropped by nearly a quarter over the same time period.

If you truly believe guns are tools, treat them that way. It won't fully solve the problem, but it would certainly help.

People don't use guns every day like cars. 99% of the time they're put away in a drawer or gun case. I'm all for background checks and evaluations but comparing guns to cars is ridiculous

OhhhJa posted...

People don't use guns every day like cars.

I use my car roughly twice a month.

I still have to have it registered and insured the same as everyone else.
---

OhhhJa posted...

comparing guns to cars is ridiculous

Literally what you did when you brought up the tired, facile "_____ kills more people than guns, why don't we ban _____" argument

Rockies posted...

OhhhJa posted...

comparing guns to cars is ridiculous

Literally what you did when you brought up the tired, facile "_____ kills more people than guns, why don't we ban _____" argument

Ummm I never said ban cars. I was also just referencing his argument which was almost entirely backed on a false equivalency to cars. Why does it seem to be human nature to link someone's rebuttal to the whole, "hurr durr you just did it too!"

darkknight109 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

People don't use guns every day like cars.

I use my car roughly twice a month.

I still have to have it registered and insured the same as everyone else.

Good for you. You aren't most people. By and large, cars are used waaaaaaaaayyyy more than guns every day

It was implied, or at least you were heading down that road. At best it might have evolved into the (also tired and facile) "we'd still have more people dying by _____ so why bother even doing anything about guns" argument. Nobody is saying that there is a perfect solution, but it's stupid to continue not doing anything

It's funny how you are trying to argue about usage rate of cars in comparison to guns to dismiss an argument. Okay, but if you want to take usage rate into account, then it makes your argument about more car deaths pretty meaningless - surely cars lead to waaaaay fewer deaths per use than guns.

OhhhJa posted...

darkknight109 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

People don't use guns every day like cars.

I use my car roughly twice a month.

I still have to have it registered and insured the same as everyone else.

Good for you. You aren't most people. By and large, cars are used waaaaaaaaayyyy more than guns every day

OK... so why did you say that cars kill way more people than guns?

I mean, if cars are used more than guns then that makes sense. It's sort of like saying "guns kill more people every day in America than tanks" - technically true, but it also is useless in supporting an argument.
---

Yellow posted...

What part of 'A well regulated militia' do you not understand?

REGULATED. The Republican spook word is in the constitution.

What a crock of shit. You can have guns so when the need arises you can form a regulated militia, if you could only own guns when you start a rebellion, inherently you'd be exempt from owning one afterwards as rebels are against the law.
---

Babbit55 posted...

Rasmoh posted...

But they are literally the only effective means of protection for huge amounts of people. If you have a more effective way for my 5'6" 130 lb wife to defend herself against a 6'2" 230lb attacker, I'd love to hear it.

How will a gun help her defend herself?

Let us take some scenarios and see how the gun helps!

1) Someone wants to mug her, he has a gun/knife in her face demanding her bag. She can either, give up the bag and live, or reach for her gun instead and just be shot or stabbed instead. Yeah that gun really helped!

Luckily she is smart and walks with a hand in her bag, she has it on her revolver and fires through the bag

2) Someone wants her dead, she is stood at an ATM getting money, someone walks up behind her and stabs/shoots her. She had no time to get her gun.

She is also aware of her surroundings, and when someone is appoaching her from behind at an atm she turns to face them, hand in her purse....

3)Kidnappers! She goes to get in her car and there is a van next to it, as she goes in her bag for her keys a man comes out the side door and puts a sack over her head, drags her in and knocks her out. He then takes the gun from her bag. Again so much use!

LIke you said, hand in bag.... she sees a man coming out the door towards her with a sack, she shifts her grip from her keys to her gun, falls on to her back to create distance and fires up.

Guns are crap for self defence.

People that take there personal protection seriously, are usually as well or better trained/prepaired than 75% of cops.
---

ultra magnus13 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Rasmoh posted...

But they are literally the only effective means of protection for huge amounts of people. If you have a more effective way for my 5'6" 130 lb wife to defend herself against a 6'2" 230lb attacker, I'd love to hear it.

How will a gun help her defend herself?

Let us take some scenarios and see how the gun helps!

1) Someone wants to mug her, he has a gun/knife in her face demanding her bag. She can either, give up the bag and live, or reach for her gun instead and just be shot or stabbed instead. Yeah that gun really helped!

Luckily she is smart and walks with a hand in her bag, she has it on her revolver and fires through the bag

2) Someone wants her dead, she is stood at an ATM getting money, someone walks up behind her and stabs/shoots her. She had no time to get her gun.

She is also aware of her surroundings, and when someone is appoaching her from behind at an atm she turns to face them, hand in her purse....

3)Kidnappers! She goes to get in her car and there is a van next to it, as she goes in her bag for her keys a man comes out the side door and puts a sack over her head, drags her in and knocks her out. He then takes the gun from her bag. Again so much use!

LIke you said, hand in bag.... she sees a man coming out the door towards her with a sack, she shifts her grip from her keys to her gun, falls on to her back to create distance and fires up.

Guns are crap for self defence.

People that take there personal protection seriously, are usually as well or better trained/prepaired than 75% of cops.

She doesnt sound paranoid.... because everyone walks about with a hand in a big! Be realistic.
---

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-arms-well-regulated-and-militia-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

Heres something for those of you who keep bringing up well regulated

Edit: hold up, I need to try to unfuck the link I posted
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-terms-arms-well-regulated-and-militia-mean-in-the-Second-Amendment

Heres something for those of you who keep bringing up well regulated

Edit: hold up, I need to try to unfuck the link I posted

Eh, fuck it, just remove the weird characters before arms and put an apostrophe there and it should work.
---

Babbit55 posted...

She doesnt sound paranoid.... because everyone walks about with a hand in a big! Be realistic.

It is realistic when apparently you get thugs teleporting in your face with a knife demanding your things, stab you from the ether when you use the ATMs and park up behind your car to kidnap you.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

She doesnt sound paranoid.... because everyone walks about with a hand in a big! Be realistic.

It is realistic when apparently you get thugs teleporting in your face with a knife demanding your things, stab you from the ether when you use an ATM and park up behind your car to kidnap you.

Apart from they kinda do. A thug isnt going to walk up to you like a thug, but wait till your near. I have seen videos of some in China getting knifed in the back at an atm. And people in vans parking next to peoples cars and kidnapping them is a very common tactic they use
---

Babbit55 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

She doesnt sound paranoid.... because everyone walks about with a hand in a big! Be realistic.

It is realistic when apparently you get thugs teleporting in your face with a knife demanding your things, stab you from the ether when you use an ATM and park up behind your car to kidnap you.

Apart from they kinda do. A thug isnt going to walk up to you like a thug, but wait till your near. I have seen videos of some in China getting knifed in the back at an atm. And people in vans parking next to peoples cars and kidnapping them is a very common tactic they use

A meteor could also obliterate you where you stand, how would your gun protect you from that??

Look, guns are not magic forcefields that stop all theoretical attempts on your life, however I have never been in a violent confrontation where possession of a gun wouldn't stop it sharpish.

Practically speaking, a gun will keep you safe as long as you don't dick about with it, much like how a knife will help you prepare your dinner as long as you don't use it on yourself.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Babbit55 posted...

She doesnt sound paranoid.... because everyone walks about with a hand in a big! Be realistic.

It is realistic when apparently you get thugs teleporting in your face with a knife demanding your things, stab you from the ether when you use an ATM and park up behind your car to kidnap you.

Apart from they kinda do. A thug isnt going to walk up to you like a thug, but wait till your near. I have seen videos of some in China getting knifed in the back at an atm. And people in vans parking next to peoples cars and kidnapping them is a very common tactic they use

A meteor could also obliterate you where you stand, how would your gun protect you from that??

Look, guns are not magic forcefields that stop all theoretical attempts on your life, however I have never been in a violent confrontation where possession of a gun wouldn't stop it sharpish.

Practically speaking, a gun will keep you safe as long as you don't dick about with it, much like how a knife will help you prepare your dinner as long as you don't use it on yourself.

Thing is you apparently keep a gun for self defence, literally for the reasons I posted. If it no good in those, whats it good for? Huh?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Look, guns are not magic forcefields that stop all theoretical attempts on your life, however I have never been in a violent confrontation where possession of a gun wouldn't stop it sharpish.

Practically speaking, a gun will keep you safe as long as you don't dick about with it, much like how a knife will help you prepare your dinner as long as you don't use it on yourself.

If guns were effective self-defence tools, logic dictates that the US - with more guns than people and significantly more guns than any of its contemporaries - would have relatively low violent crime rates. Instead, the US has a sky-high murder rate, and is average-to-high on other forms of violent crime.

The numbers don't lie - at best, guns are ineffective and at worst they fuel more crime than they prevent.
---